Experimentals

[CoffeeIcePapers]

My life insurance only pays half if I bite it in an experimental. No thanks.

 

[esa17]

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.

It sounds like you need to hit the FARs, you're not likely to lose your certificate unless you do something dumb. Please don't make blanket statements about something you know nothing about. Aviation has enough problems right now.

Experimentals are some of the most fun you can have in an airplane. Do it man.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

For me it depends. I have done a FR in an experimental and will probably do it again.

In this case it was for a friend who owns an RV-6A. He asked me and I told him my rule - I don't do FRs in airplanes I am not familiar with - so he'd need to teach me to fly it before his flight review.

So, here, the combination was someone I knew and had some trust in and a make-model that has a good history.

 

[jynxyjoe]

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.

The regs for certifying something IFR are much more stringent. Normally it cleans up the little avionics quirks and equipment failures. Some airplanes it means they'll never see a certification document because it is so worthless in environmental testing. It'd kinda like be explaining all the regs in part 91. Part 23 and 25 of the FARs are public knowledge if you feel like reading regs.

PS: The oversight from the FAA once it's certified is a great help to pilots as well. If the Vtail Bonanza was an experimental, you'd still have the tails ripping off (tail cuffs). The 172 wouldn't have the structural reinforcement where the tail meets the empennage. The cirrus's flaps would still come down every once in a while when you transmitted on the radios. The Eclipse would be flying today, sorry I just love kicking a plane when its down. FAA has shown that a product must reform and continue to preform in accordance with the regs which is a huge method of prevention.

 

[jynxyjoe]

It sounds like you need to hit the FARs, you're not likely to lose your certificate unless you do something dumb. Please don't make blanket statements about something you know nothing about. Aviation has enough problems right now.

Experimentals are some of the most fun you can have in an airplane. Do it man.

Nothing wrong with an ounce of caution.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

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.

So certified airplanes have never had pencil whipped annuals? With all due respect everything you cite above regarding experimental is just as possible and every bit as likely with owner supplied production aircraft. And the ability to spot poor mx and pencil whipped inspections during a preflight is no different with a production airplane and it is with an experimental.

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?).

Got case history to support that claim?

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

Documentation is the same, inspections are just as standardized and most importantly, the FAA has not only look over and approved the aircraft design, they've also looked over and approved that individual copy of the aircraft design. The FAA doesn't look at any C172's rolling off the assembly line, but they look at every nook and cranny of every experimental before it receives an airworthiness cert.

If you ain't comfortable flying them, then you ain't comfortable flying them. Nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case, man up and say so instead of making bogus and unsupported claims that your certs are more at risk simply because its an experimental.

 

[jynxyjoe]

So certified airplanes have never had pencil whipped annuals? With all due respect everything you cite above regarding experimental is just as possible and every bit as likely with owner supplied production aircraft. And the ability to spot poor mx and pencil whipped inspections during a preflight is no different with a production airplane and it is with an experimental.


Got case history to support that claim?

Documentation is the same, inspections are just as standardized and most importantly, the FAA has not only look over and approved the aircraft design, they've also looked over and approved that individual copy of the aircraft design. The FAA doesn't look at any C172's rolling off the assembly line, but they look at every nook and cranny of every experimental before it receives an airworthiness cert.

If you ain't comfortable flying them, then you ain't comfortable flying them. Nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case, man up and say so instead of making bogus and unsupported claims that your certs are more at risk simply because its an experimental.

1.OK couple quick notes. Saying that a certified airplane once had a pencil whipped annual does not make the experimental equal in safety. This is brought up a lot and it makes no sense. If people disregard regs on either type airplane it is dangerous.

2. I know of at least 2 different cfi's personally who have letters of investigation on their files because of a mechanical issue on an airplane they were CFI'ing and the FAA did a ramp check on them. In Gregs case it was something that was just on the flight just prior that was un-observable, and on Chris's the plane was out of an annual, he was riding along with his buddy NOT EVEN CFI'ing and the FAA "busted" him because he was there too. Both were BS in my opinion. It happens, it is disgusting. I've only been doing this 10 or so years and I already have met or personally know a half dozen people this situation has happened to.

3. Documentation after the airplane leaves the factory may be similar. I'm not a Mech. I can tell you I did certify airplanes for a couple years and am still very close to that world and I can tell you simply that the certification process is not the same. It's not even close. Thats just a plane fact. Feel free to call the FSDO

4. The reason experimentals are watched on the assembly line is because the company, generally, has not paid to get their production certificate. Other times it is because they failed the production certificate process. The very fact you are illustrating that is very misleading. The reason the FAA is there is because they are not fully certified or have failed their cert license.

I have two years in the biz and it is a family biz. Where are you getting you info?

The last paragraph I completely agree with. If you don't feel comfortable don't go. With that said I've flown in many different experimental and I think they are a great value. Though personally I refuse to do anything other than cross coutnries or pattern work with them. I don't take them IFR, i don't care what the owner says, and I sure as hell don't do aerobatics with them.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

1.OK couple quick notes. Saying that a certified airplane once had a pencil whipped annual does not make the experimental equal in safety. This is brought up a lot and it makes no sense. If people disregard regs on either type airplane it is dangerous.

So we agree then.

2. I know of at least 2 different cfi's personally who have letters of investigation on their files because of a mechanical issue on an airplane they were CFI'ing and the FAA did a ramp check on them. In Gregs case it was something that was just on the flight just prior that was un-observable, and on Chris's the plane was out of an annual, he was riding along with his buddy NOT EVEN CFI'ing and the FAA "busted" him because he was there too. Both were BS in my opinion. It happens, it is disgusting. I've only been doing this 10 or so years and I already have met or personally know a half dozen people this situation has happened to.

Were these cases in certified airplanes or experimentals. I was commenting on FloridaCFII's claim that experimentals are more likely to be pencil whipped and therefore he is more likely to have his certs at risk. I don't see anything in your statement which supports that claim.

3. Documentation after the airplane leaves the factory may be similar. I'm not a Mech. I can tell you I did certify airplanes for a couple years and am still very close to that world and I can tell you simply that the certification process is not the same. It's not even close. Thats just a plane fact. Feel free to call the FSDO

Of course the certification process is not the same. That's why they're called experimental. My point is that they are indeed certified none the less. FloridaCFII made the claim that one could simply attach wings to a beer can, call it an airplane and legally fly it. That is not the case. The certifcation standards are different, but Experimentals must earn an airworthiness certificate none the less. And while this may come a shock to some, it's called an airworthiness certificate because... wait for it... wait for it... It's called an airworthiness cert because the plane is airworthy.

4. The reason experimentals are watched on the assembly line is because the company, generally, has not paid to get their production certificate. Other times it is because they failed the production certificate process. The very fact you are illustrating that is very misleading. The reason the FAA is there is because they are not fully certified or have failed their cert license.

It sounds like you're talking about the certification of the manufacturing process. I was talking about the fact that when you build an experimental, either the FAA or a DAR must inspect it before an airworthiness cert is issued.

 

[jynxyjoe]

So we agree then.

Were these cases in certified airplanes or experimentals. I was commenting on FloridaCFII's claim that experimentals are more likely to be pencil whipped and therefore he is more likely to have his certs at risk. I don't see anything in your statement which supports that claim.


Of course the certification process is not the same. That's why they're called experimental. My point is that they are indeed certified none the less. FloridaCFII made the claim that one could simply attach wings to a beer can, call it an airplane and legally fly it. That is not the case. The certifcation standards are different, but Experimentals must earn an airworthiness certificate none the less. And while this may come a shock to some, it's called an airworthiness certificate because... wait for it... wait for it... It's called an airworthiness cert because the plane is airworthy.

It sounds like you're talking about the certification of the manufacturing process. I was talking about the fact that when you build an experimental, either the FAA or a DAR must inspect it before an airworthiness cert is issued.

Sounds like I need to go back and read the beer can post, I didn't see that. Looks like that takes care of two of your replys

Nope the cases were in an Arrow and an Aztruck. Of course, funny enough for us, the damn things were not technically airworthy at the time of flights so it doesn't matter if they were certified or not .

The third paragraph we are in agreement too, unfortunately I hear what you said earlier a lot from home builders and they take that to mean the plane is just as good as any certified plane. Getting the distinction down is very hard and it involves a lot of FAR'age which puts people to sleep. As long as people aren't trying to pass off their experimental aircraft as "as good as" certified aircraft I've got no problem. I've found salesmen mis-representing their product and saying stuff in the literature that can be EASILY misunderstood as some sort of defacto FAA certification. Normally I get into these arguments and the other side (normally salesmen) try to say I'm splitting hairs. There are no hairs to split. Part 23 and 25 are very plain.

Typically in a real assembly line your DAR/DER reps are involved in a cert process so they don't have to be there every time a plane comes off the line. That is the production cert. When you prove conformity to the FSDO you have your own company reps certifying the process. What happens to many small builders is because of their small unit production it is cheaper to just bring the FAA in every time rather than get their own certificate.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Of course the certification process is not the same. That's why they're called experimental. My point is that they are indeed certified none the less. FloridaCFII made the claim that one could simply attach wings to a beer can, call it an airplane and legally fly it. That is not the case. The certifcation standards are different, but Experimentals must earn an airworthiness certificate none the less. And while this may come a shock to some, it's called an airworthiness certificate because... wait for it... wait for it... It's called an airworthiness cert because the plane is airworthy.

I saw what you were saying. I didn't think what he said, the beer can with wings, applied to all experimentals. I took it as him saying be careful what you jump into. Which I think is great advice.

 

[tgrayson]

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

My cousin, who is a dentist, is building his own airplane. He isn't even a pilot. Why should I trust him? What does he know about the flight testing of aircraft? What does he know about the kinds of things that can go wrong?

You simply cannot make a blanket statement that all experimentals are safe. If you aren't qualified to judge, I suggest that it's a bit foolhardy to get in one, much less "instruct" in one.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

You simply cannot make a blanket statement that all experimentals are safe. If you aren't qualified to judge, I suggest that it's a bit foolhardy to get in one, much less "instruct" in one.

Take out the word 'experimentals' and replace it with 'production aircraft' and you find that your statement isn't any less true.

 

[shdw]

Re: Experimental

I think the distinction needs to be made between types of experimental: war birds/x-military, kits, and homebuilt. I am sure there are more but these are the main ones I am familiar with. I was told there are levels of experimental certifcation but I have been unable to locate documentation on this, anyone familiar?

War birds/x-military - This is anything from old tiger moth bipes if they are even still in existence to popular war birds like the P-51 or Yak52 mentioned earlier and any others you can get your hands on. You will also find military jets in this category as well.

Needless to say I would certainly trust the aerobatic capabilities of that aircraft, would I push it to the limits, no, but I would do any basic aerobatics. Keep in mind they are not unlimited acerbate certified, even in the fighter days, they were meant for smooth loading/unloading such as loops like they were designed to do in dogfights. If you watch an aerobatic demo in any of these types of aircraft you will see what I am referring too with smooth maneuvers compared to something like a Pitts (experimental).

As far as safety goes, I believe this type of experimental to be fairly safe, certainly for everyday flying/IFR if they are equipped properly. These things were tanks that took gunfire and brought men back alive, I personally trust them.


Kit built - This was touched on earlier if I recall discussing the assembly line and such. Well some companies simply don't want to make a factory, build up an assembly line that meets all the certification because it costs money. So instead they build the aircraft pieces (glassairs and Pitts are some common ones) and sell an amazing aircraft for 50,000-75,000 and let the customer do the assembly process.

These kits are fairly straight forward, in the case of a Pitts with wood and covering the ribs and spars are all pre cut and all you have to do is read the instructions and slide Part A into Part C and so on. The building process in fact requires almost no understanding of flying in general but basics of construction and how to properly assemble each part. In the case of a glassair:

And comprehensive assembly manuals will lead you step by step through the building process, quickly and easily.

As for the avionics and the engine, you have an A&P handle that for you and you finish with either of these aircrafts 125-K instead of a new 172 for 300? 400? what are they at now?

These are only 2 seater's but in the case of the glassair, it cruises at 272 TAS at 24,000 feet. If you don't need 4 seats why pay double to cruise at 125. (Note: Assume both are full IFR with autopilot and a glass panel and the glassair is turbo)

I believe these are the safest aircraft for the experimental category and certainly would use them in IFR or for aerobatics. I haven't had the pleasure of flying in the glassair on the field yet but I can't wait. Again smooth loading aerobatics no snaps like the war birds. With the exception of the Pitts and a few others which are designed to handle D maneuvers.


Homebuilt - You could be sitting on a beer keg with a lawn mower engine behind you in an aircraft where you have to add 10 lbs to the W&B for duck tape. They essentially can be anything as long as your not flying them somewhere where you can kill someone other than yourself.

To my knowledge you cannot instruct in this experimental type aircraft and for good reason.



Knowing all of that I think this is on a per case basis, what the aircraft is, who the person is, what you have to do with them, and any other questions you may want to ask yourself. For a couple extra bucks it probably isn't worth it, but for the experience in another type of aircraft, maybe something historic, you might learn something.

I think the biggest question will be insurance should anything at all happen and maybe some way to keep yourself from being PIC. I would (for me) never do primary instruction in experimental aircraft.

 

[USMCmech]

For me it depends. I have done a FR in an experimental and will probably do it again.

In this case it was for a friend who owns an RV-6A. He asked me and I told him my rule - I don't do FRs in airplanes I am not familiar with - so he'd need to teach me to fly it before his flight review.

So, here, the combination was someone I knew and had some trust in and a make-model that has a good history.

I'm with you on this one.

If it's a random stranger with a design that I've never heard of that looks like he's skimped on the MX, NO WAY.

OTOH, a pilot I know or has a good reputation, flying a common design (RV, Kitfox, EZ, ect.) that has been well care for. Sure, lets go. I'd love some time in a new type of aircraft.

CFIs, and pilots who run away from Expimentals because of the certification catagory alone, have simply not educated themselves on the realities of those aircraft.

 

[tgrayson]

Take out the word 'experimentals' and replace it with 'production aircraft' and you find that your statement isn't any less true.

To some degree.

However, there are more C172s in existence than all the experimentals put together and their handling characteristics are well-known and largely consistent in spite of the variable degree of maintenance.

To a lesser degree, the same thing would be true about most production aircraft.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Something I'll add, my buddies RV-6 is nasty in a stall. I do not like it at all. I wouldn't go doing BFR's in some of these without real experience in them.

It's story time with grandpa so everyone sit down on your mat.

Long ago Burt Rutan was telling everyone at Beech, that would listen, that "his" canard design wouldn't stall. Impossible to stall. Well finally went and did the flight tests on the Starship (pictured below) and put her in a stall. Yeah I know, Burt Rutan wrong, who woulda guessed:whatever:. Anyway, long story short, after +10,000ft loss the test pilot finally got her rolled over and Split S'ed out of it. The recent Skycatcher tragedies come to mind. These Long EZ's and their derivatives have similar stories.

Just be careful up there please.

 

[esa17]

Nothing wrong with an ounce of caution.

There is when it cuts off a leg to cure a hangnail. His statement was no different than when one of our relatives said: "I'm never getting on a turbo prop again, they're DANGEROUS!!!!!"


I've been around dozens of experimentals and as one poster put it, they're often times better than most certified aircraft. The one example I have of a bad experimental I'm currently rebuilding since the owner ran it through a fence.

 

[jynxyjoe]

There is when it cuts off a leg to cure a hangnail. His statement was no different than when one of our relatives said: "I'm never getting on a turbo prop again, they're DANGEROUS!!!!!"


I've been around dozens of experimentals and as one poster put it, they're often times better than most certified aircraft. The one example I have of a bad experimental I'm currently rebuilding since the owner ran it through a fence.

Depends on what you mean by better.
Safety is my concern. I've illustrated that many times above, let the reader decide.

 

[BrewMaster]

Ok, talked to the guy at work again today. He sounds very knowledgeable, and seems to know a lot about his plane. Originally I thought it was the tailwheel version of the Quickie, but I found out it has a tricycle gear. He said he pampers it very well and has flown with different CFI's who have had no problem with it. I'm starting to lean towards doing it because it is feeling a little safer. Thanks for the input though, I was surprised how many people had no issue with it.

 

[jrh]

Thanks for all the insightful advice from everyone in this thread. I've certainly learned a few things. I still don't see any reason to categorically avoid experimentals. To me, they're well within the "acceptably safe" range of the risk spectrum, but YMMV. Fly safe everyone!