Experimentals

BrewMaster

BrewMaster

Well-Known Member
Had a guy call in asking if I would do a BFR in a Quickie Q-200. I don't have a tailwheel endorsement, but I don't think I would do it even if I did. What is the general consensus on experimentals in general? If I know nothing about their stall/spin characteristics, etc. I tend to shy away from them, but was wondering what everyone else thought? Well founded or being a pansy?
 
If it's not a certificated airplane, I want nothing to do with it. How am I supposed to know if the thing is airworthy? I'm not willing to risk my certificates for a few extra hours.
 
EXPs are awesome! Every one I've flown has been TONS of fun! However, I do give it a thorough look over! And oh goodness I've seen some that are sketchy! Like one that had a big beer crate as the protector for the fuel tank and you sat on a plastic lawn chair and the throttle was topped by a Beer Draught Tap head.
 
When I was a CFI, I had a guy come in one day asking me if I could work with him on his Commercial-ASEL certificate in his YAK-52. :D

yak52.jpg
 
For starters most experimentals are perfectly safe, and as a CFI you can treat it the same as any other airplane. Many are equiped for IFR flight. If a Skyhawk is a pickup truck, a RV is Porsche 911.

They must have the same basic equipment (TOMATO FLAMES) that a certified airplane requires.

Experimentals require an annual "condition inspection" by any A&P or the builder if he has a repairmans certificate for that airplane. They may use non TSO parts if the builder/designer deems them safe to use. Toggle switches from Auto Zone are no diffrent from the ones Cessna sells for 10X the price.

90% of the time they are FAR better maintained than the POS airplanes that are for rent at your local flight school.

Most of the popular kits have very predictible handeling charitarstics.
 
USMCmech said:
90% of the time they are FAR better maintained than the POS airplanes that are for rent at your local flight school.
Click to expand...

I was just about say that. For the most part, the average homebuilt plane is in stellar condition, because it's the pilot's baby. In contrast, that 172 that has been landed nose wheel first thousands of times is kept in just enough condition to still be rentable.
 
I guess I'm not so worried about them staying together, but more the flying characteristics, stalls, spins, etc.
 
floridaCFII said:
If it's not a certificated airplane, I want nothing to do with it. How am I supposed to know if the thing is airworthy? I'm not willing to risk my certificates for a few extra hours.
Click to expand...
I had no idea that earning a CFI certificate would also qualify me to be an IA. That's a real two for one. I'm going to start working on my CFI/IA cert tomorrow.

But just so I'm clear on this, how exactly would you be risking your certificates any more or less than you would if you gave instruction in any other owner supplied airplane?
 
Joe Gremlin said:
I had no idea that earning a CFI certificate would also qualify me to be an IA. That's a real two for one. I'm going to start working on my CFI/IA cert tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Love the sarcasm... but I was getting at the fact that when you fly an experimental you're taking the builder at face value that the thing is airworthy. How am I supposed to know that he didn't take shortcuts or pencil-whip inspections?

With a certificated airplane I can review the mx logs that were (hopefully, at some point) touched by someone other than the owner, and I can review the POH, ADs, and any other available manufacturer's info to make sure the aircraft is in acceptable condition.

But just so I'm clear on this, how exactly would you be risking your certificates any more or less than you would if you gave instruction in any other owner supplied airplane?
Click to expand...

Because if you're acting as a CFI in an airplane and it has a mishap, the FAA is going to be looking for you first. Even if it was a mechanical, they very well might come at you with the claim that you should have noticed something was not airworthy and/or poorly constructed (careless and reckless anyone?).

With an owner-supplied certificated airplane, you have more documentation, more standardized inspections, and most importantly the FAA has looked over the aircraft design.

If you want to go hop in any beer can with wings, knock yourself out... but I stand by the fact that it's not worth the risk to my certificates (or my personal saftey for that matter).
 
Experimentals are fun for Day VFR if you can trust the guy that put them together. I do not suggest taking them into any IFR condition nor would I suggest doing anything in them you wouldn't do with a normal category aircraft.

Most experimentals start off with the idea of being certified. They find out the cost of certification or changing their designs and they run away.

Used to certify airplanes for EMI work. I'm not an expert but I know and worked with plenty that are and none of them endorsed any sort of IFR work in them. You are taking your life in your hands. Just ask John Walton.
 
Treat them as you would any aircraft you're not familliar with. If its someone you know and trust, then why not? If the person has a good reputation, then go for it. If you've heard negatives, then pass.
 
floridaCFII said:
Love the sarcasm... but I was getting at the fact that when you fly an experimental you're taking the builder at face value that the thing is airworthy. How am I supposed to know that he didn't take shortcuts or pencil-whip inspections?

With a certificated airplane I can review the mx logs that were (hopefully, at some point) touched by someone other than the owner, and I can review the POH, ADs, and any other available manufacturer's info to make sure the aircraft is in acceptable condition.

If you want to go hop in any beer can with wings, knock yourself out... but I stand by the fact that it's not worth the risk to my certificates (or my personal saftey for that matter).
Click to expand...

Have you seen the POS spam cans that most schools are flying?

I have flown in several experimentals that were absoultely spotless inside and out. Verses a 141 school I saw where NONE of their airplanes were legitimately airworthy.

I've been flying and turning wrenches on airplanes for 15 years, and I'll take a well maintained homebuilt over a flight school 172 anyday.
 
I'm with USMCmech. Experimentals are fine aircraft.

I'm not a mechanic so I won't even pretend to know what is airworthy or unairworthy. I fly the things, I don't inspect them. Unless something is drastically wrong or the owner has a scary reputation, I assume the aircraft is safe. I've seen so many meticulous experimental owners and so many pencil-whipped inspections on certified aircraft that I never draw hard lines between the two groups.

As for the flight characteristics, it's something to be careful of, but that applies to all aircraft regardless of origin. Most of the common experimentals (RV-series, Kitfox, Long-EZ, Glasair, etc.) are fairly docile. I suppose if you're really nervous about it you could always wear a chute and do all maneuvers at high altitudes, but otherwise I would trust the owner. They're the expert on its quirks and limitations.
 
BrewMaster said:
Well founded or being a pansy?
Click to expand...

I doubt I would do it. Flying with a pilot you don't know in an airplane you don't know is a bit like a small boy whistling past the grave yard at night.

The manufacturing tolerances on even some production airplanes can provide them with greatly varying stall/spin characteristics, so I can only imagine the variation among experimentals. Professional test pilots approach their first stalls in a new airplane with great care, because they know how slight changes in rigging can produce a completely different airplane.

Trusting the owner is a bit naive, in my view.
 
tgrayson said:
Trusting the owner is a bit naive, in my view.
Click to expand...

If you can't trust the owner/builder, I don't know who you can trust.

There are a million things that can kill you when flying, regardless of if the aircraft is experimental or certified. About 999,930 of those things we aren't even able to see when preflighting.

Basically, as pilots, we're putting a lot of faith in things outside of our control every time we take to the skies. We're trusting every pilot who flew the plane before us, as well as every mechanic who worked on the plane over the years. You and I both know there are plenty of events which could have taken the plane outside of its design envelope at some point in history, but we fly it anyway.

I don't see anything naive about trusting a guy who probably knows more about his plane than any A&P or test pilot ever will. Get too paranoid and a person will stay on the ground all the time.

Now, all of this being said, if a person still isn't comfortable giving the flight review for some reason, by all means, don't do it. I just object to the notion that the owner isn't a safe source of information about the aircraft. All of the owners/builders I've met have been extremely knowledgeable and safe with their aircraft.
 
jrh said:
If you can't trust the owner/builder, I don't know who you can trust.

There are a million things that can kill you when flying, regardless of if the aircraft is experimental or certified. About 999,930 of those things we aren't even able to see when preflighting.

Basically, as pilots, we're putting a lot of faith in things outside of our control every time we take to the skies. We're trusting every pilot who flew the plane before us, as well as every mechanic who worked on the plane over the years. You and I both know there are plenty of events which could have taken the plane outside of its design envelope at some point in history, but we fly it anyway.

I don't see anything naive about trusting a guy who probably knows more about his plane than any A&P or test pilot ever will. Get too paranoid and a person will stay on the ground all the time.

Now, all of this being said, if a person still isn't comfortable giving the flight review for some reason, by all means, don't do it. I just object to the notion that the owner isn't a safe source of information about the aircraft. All of the owners/builders I've met have been extremely knowledgeable and safe with their aircraft.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not paranoid but here is another viewpoint you may not have considered.

We trust the FAA as well. We don't always understand why they do what they do, we may not even agree with it, but we do try and abide by their guidance in faith. The experimental, by definition, means the FAA doesn't care what design flaw you have, you are taking your life in your hands and they won't put their signatures on it.

I personally think its a little naive pilots think the certification process is trivial and aircraft mechanics expertise are equally trivial.

I've flown in experimentals, I've done some work with them on the certification side, I think they are alright for Day VFR for the most part. But I don't drink the cool-aid nor salesmen rhetoric that leads people to believe that experimentals are "just as safe, if not more safe, than certified aircraft". It's not true. Doesn't matter how much people want to believe otherwise. Facts don't support the clause, no one in the certification world believes in that jibberish, and insurance companies don't buy it either. It's because there is nothing to buy except snake oil. But by all means, do what you please. Having this conversation is a lot like talking to a Macintosh geek, if you haven't done that before, think about talking to a wall.
 
jynxyjoe said:
I've flown in experimentals, I've done some work with them on the certification side, I think they are alright for Day VFR for the most part. But I don't drink the cool-aid nor salesmen rhetoric that leads people to believe that experimentals are "just as safe, if not more safe, than certified aircraft".
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. Could you give any more details as to what makes them acceptably safe for Day VFR ops, but not adequately safe for other conditions then? I honestly don't understand.

Also, as it pertains to the original poster, do you see anything hazardous about giving a flight review in one? I see it as a pretty straightforward task. Talk to the pilot for a while, find out if the plane has any quirks you should be aware of, then go fly for a while. It seems simple and safe to me, yet other people act as though it would have a high probability of death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top