New Sport Pilot Regs In the Making

[lv2plyguitar 172]

EAA has recently requested that the FAA add Cessna 150 and 152's as aircraft that can be flown with a sport pilots license.  I hope it passes.

 

[dholly 718]

Well, the Icon just got a gross weight exemption but it was deemed safety related. I can't see the Feds opening the door for any other reason so I'm not holding my breath.

[SkyPirate 8]

I think i remember hearing about that a couple years back, maybe they resubmitted the requst

[SkyPirate 8]

That would double the value of a 150-2

Edited 27 Sep 2013 by SkyPirate

[Av8r3400 1179]

I highly doubt it. The proposed 180 hp and under no-medical rule has quietly died. This is an old proposal to increase the LSA weight to 1600 or whatever it was in order to include the C150/152.

I have no hope this will ever happen.

[Mendlerr 4]

It's kind of unrelated but we've been working on a 1956 Beechcraft that has all sorts of issues.  It's going to require 50% of the aircraft cost (just purchased by new owner) to get it flying again.  we actually called the Nashville fisdo to ask if we could declassify it to an experimental (it's been done here before) and they said no.  The largest cost is the prop spinner, $2,450 was the cheapest we found and we were told that only 4 new ones exist.  We have 4 spinners for Van's RV's that are absolutely identical that we wanted to use for sub $200..  Apparently they had 3 Cessna's recently declassified to experimental and all 3 crashed due to mechanical failure causing multiple fatalities.  So from I understand they are getting a little more strict regarding certified aircraft and recertification due to these recent accidents

[SuberAvid 617]

I haven't quite figured out what is legal to do in going from certified to experimental.  From reading the information I have seen on the EAA web site and their "ask the DAR" articles, it seems to be impossible to do that but I keep hearing that it is being done.  The DAR who inspected my plane said that it is even questionable to use certifired parts on an experimental according to the FAA but he does not see that doing so violates any part of the 51% rule.  Seems to be a lot of misinformation out there.  I know there are a lot of certified AC owners that think it is a piece of cake to just change thier planes to experimental if they got the whim to do so.  Seems this would be very difficult from what I have read.  Does anyone had first hand knowledge doing this?

[BryceKat 125]

First and formost, unless your building an experimental from a kit, the Nash Fsdo Can't tell you their ass from a hole in the ground! When I was teaching myself to weld, I asked them to look at some of my test samples. No one knew what qualified as a satisfactory weld! Nor could they recommend anybody in the middle Tennessee area. The head of home built examinations for the middle Tennessee area told me to just follow the manufacturers instruction book! I asked him what if I was building an airplane from Plans, and he replied I don't know! Breezy aircraft have always used a piper PA 12 or Cesta 172 or fill in the blank Wing from a certified aircraft. These have been getting signed off and flying for as long as the guy in the FAA office has been alive! As for decertifying an aircraft and turning it into an experimental, you might have to go the restricted route. A call to the EAA office can probably help tho you gonna have to dig your way through the layers of you bureaucracy to find somebody that knows what they're doing with this. Good luck man!

[EDMO 1078]

They tightened the rules a while back - Breezy, which I have flown years ago, is no longer legal to be licensed for "amateur-built experimental" with Piper wings - The originals are already licensed -

But,you can build Dakota or other wings and be legal - The same goes for the Piper with the v6 which was sold a while back - it was made before the rule change, and you cant license another one the way that one was licensed.

The rules state, and I am paraphrasing: No Major parts (Wings, Fuselage, etc.) of a certified airplane can be used for an airplane that is going to be licensed as Amateur-Built Experimental.

At least that is my understanding of it - My Cessna rudder pedals are not a "Major Part".

EDMO

[Av8r3400 1179]

Since all those piper wing components are available individually, whose to say you didn't build them? Or bought a set of wings, totally disassembled them to put in new spars, essentially building them from parts? I could name several planes like this that have been recently built and signed off. There are many, many experimental Cub clones with major Piper parts on them.

Now, saying you built a Bonanza as an experimental, will probably never pass muster. That's a different situation.

[Emory Bored 61]

There's still a big grey area around "owner built part" when factory parts are no longer available.  A 1956 Bo is the nicest of the E series engined ones.  1957 began the O-470 with the pressure carb in the H model.  I have an idea you may have not yet talked to the right folks on that spinner.  Join American Bonanza Society and talk to one of their tech counselors about Bonanza bone yards. 

 

It's kind of unrelated but we've been working on a 1956 Beechcraft that has all sorts of issues.  It's going to require 50% of the aircraft cost (just purchased by new owner) to get it flying again.  we actually called the Nashville fisdo to ask if we could declassify it to an experimental (it's been done here before) and they said no.  The largest cost is the prop spinner, $2,450 was the cheapest we found and we were told that only 4 new ones exist.  We have 4 spinners for Van's RV's that are absolutely identical that we wanted to use for sub $200..  Apparently they had 3 Cessna's recently declassified to experimental and all 3 crashed due to mechanical failure causing multiple fatalities.  So from I understand they are getting a little more strict regarding certified aircraft and recertification due to these recent accidents

[EDMO 1078]

Since all those piper wing components are available individually, whose to say you didn't build them? Or bought a set of wings, totally disassembled them to put in new spars, essentially building them from parts? I could name several planes like this that have been recently built and signed off. There are many, many experimental Cub clones with major Piper parts on them.

Now, saying you built a Bonanza as an experimental, will probably never pass muster. That's a different situation.

I totally agree - Been done and will be done! Not all inspectors know what they are doing or take the time to read builders logs or look at photo albums, both of which you are supposed to have.

EDMO

[C5Engineer 1170]

I wasted a lot of time and ink building my "builders log" when it was time to get my AW cert. He didn't even open it. The only thing he was really interested was the W&B. He spent about 15 minutes checking off a very basic checklist of required items such as the if you fly in this plane you might die because I built it not a factory placard and such. It's amazing how much grey area there is when it comes to DAR's. I guess that log might come in handy someday if I ever decide to sell my bird. It has a list of all the work I did as well as lots of pics when the fabric was off. I also kept all my receipts from Day 1. I need to add them up someday as I often get asked how much I'm into it for. I probably don't want to do know because I'm sure it's more than the number that's in my head.

[EDMO 1078]

In my case, since I did not buy a "51% approved Kit", and mine is "scratch-built", the log and photos are absolutely necessary, IMO, to prove that I actually built more than 51% - mine is closer to 99.44% pure homebuilt, just like Ivory soap.

That is, if the inspector knows what he is supposed to do - but so many of them dont!

EDMO

Edited 10 Oct 2013 by Ed In Missouri

[Trackwelder 12]

      I have one builders log on the internet, I am not even trying to keep track of time spent, I just take pictures every few days and put a little blurb about what I have done. My Avid was started by several other people and passed through multiple hands and by the time I got it the sand blaster blew holes in a few of the tubes, I have cut them out and replaced them with Later model spec material when I had to make a repair, along with some modifications like widening the fuselage rebuilding two different wings off of different aircraft added new wingtanks built new landing gear. I feel I have easily built more than 51% of the aircraft.

      M wife is into scrapbooking and has been keeping the builders log on the Avid, I still just take pictures and date them and she puts them in a scrap book saves a little work for me, I hope I can find a DAR that isn't too picky because all I have for a bill of sale is one that says airplane parts and invoices from Aircraft Spruce and Wicks, a lot of parts have been trades that I haven't kept very good records on taxes are high enough.

[SkyPirate 8]

my own design airfoil ,..similar to kitfox/avid airfoil ,.. 48" cord.laminar flow,...063 wall tubing with beam fore and aft..designed for aluminum skin

Edited 11 Oct 2013 by SkyPirate

[wypaul 448]

In my case, since I did not buy a "51% approved Kit", and mine is "scratch-built", the log and photos are absolutely necessary, IMO, to prove that I actually built more than 51% - mine is closer to 99.44% pure homebuilt, just like Ivory soap.

That is, if the inspector knows what he is supposed to do - but so many of them dont!

EDMO

The Avid was not a 51% approved kit either, and there is a checklist that you will probably be required to fill out and score to ascertain that the plane qualifies for 51%. On both of the planes that I have built neither the FAA guy that inspected my Q-2 nor the DAR that did the Avid even glanced at the builders log or pictures. That said who knows what the next inspector will want to see. So you are right in keeping a "builders Log" to cover your bases.

[Emory Bored 61]

my own design airfoil ,..similar to kitfox/avid airfoil ,.. 48" cord.laminar flow,...063 wall tubing with beam fore and aft..designed for aluminum skin

Very nice. Well done.